Why is static linking considered a taboo in the linux community?
Why is static linking considered a taboo in the linux community?
Kevin Martinez
Jayden Baker
No reason to do it when your software is Free and you have a package manager.
Ryan Flores
>security, updating libraries
>freedom, linking custom build libraries
Really only winfags or other scrumbags prefer static linking
Sebastian Hughes
>security
Static PIE is a thing now bro. What other """security""" could you be missing?
Joshua Hill
You realize that most windows software is also dynamically linked, right?
Anthony Richardson
They don't share one pool of dlls though.
Juan Jenkins
>security, updating libraries
Hmmm, it's more insecure because you can replace any library also updates may introduce new bugs, incompatibilities or API breaks.
Evan Roberts
Yes, they share. Some of them install dlls on system32
Noah Fisher
The linux community should not be confused with the C world.
go, haskell and rust use by default static linking.
John Baker
When the resources were scarce shared libraries made sense to save resources. But now it provides no real benefit over static linking libraries. Shared libraries would work if there would be one true software ecosystem on linux but it will never be. Now shared libraries are just pain in the ass that forces everyone to update to the latest shit. Unmantained applications become abandonware because APIs and ABIs are changing. On windows you can run applications build 30 years ago. Linux has horrible backward compatibility because libraries are global, not local. The only pros about shared libraries is that it's easier to build that way.
Windows has shared libraries but if it can't find globally installed shared libraries it checks for "local" shared libraries.
People say that old software is security risk and stuff like that but come on not every application is written in C and not every application uses network.